Carolena, part I: Lolita

Nikolai

OK, I got a part of my Saturday shoot processed. We had several different looks (while perusing mostly my newly acquired high key setup), so I thought I made several posts.

I called this first series "Lolita". Carolena did a lot (and I mean *a lot*) of modeling as a teenager since she was 12. She's 19 now, but she still remembers the routines:-). Here are a few frames from this look.

#1: IMG_0006.jpg



#2: IMG_0009.jpg



#3: IMG_0003.jpg



#4: IMG_0053.jpg



#5: IMG_0056.jpg



#6: IMG_0059.jpg



#7: IMG_0083.jpg



#8: IMG_0067.jpg



#9: IMG_0078.jpg



Enjoy! C&C welcome!


This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer

clemensphoto's

WOW! She looked like she was having a lot of fun!!

cj99si

4 and 5 from this set are my favorite.

How many lights? looks like the left side wasnt blocked enough my current track record with my screen basically allows you to ignore me though.

Nikolai

clemensphoto's wrote:

WOW! She looked like she was having a lot of fun!!

We both did, in fact!

Nikolai

cj99si wrote:

4 and 5 from this set are my favorite.

hey, that's one more than the part two, so I'm a happy camper

How many lights?

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=117807

looks like the left side wasnt blocked enough my current track record with my screen basically allows you to ignore me though.

Ditto:-)

divamum

Great series, Nik - I like both batches with this lady

And what this series demonstrates (and many of your shoots have REALLY brought home to me because you are kind enough to include some outtakes when everybody's just standing there) is how a professional model COMPLETELY CHANGES in front of the camera. I don't mean makeup and styling (I know enough about those to see how and when they're responsible) but actually managing to change how they *physically* look and everything they project at the lens according to the direction they're given. Blows my mind. Which is weird, given that's what I do onstage as a performer, but I have music and text and all sorts of other stuff to generate the change; it's not just my actual, physical attributes which change. The idea of being able to do it exclusively with body lines and expression - and the photographer's direction and ability to "find the shot" to capture that (oh, I know how much of it is that, too!) - seriously blows my mind.

This one's in that category for sure when you compare and contrast the two looks you did, but one of the ladies on that beach shoot was the one that first made me REALLY notice this. the English brunette, I think it was - when I saw the outtakes I thought, 'She's a professional model? You're kiddding me." because she looked so... well... ORDINARY. Then you posted the real deal and it was like somebody had plugged her into an electric outlet and she was incandesscent - everything about her was different from her facial expressions, to the way she stood and used her body, to the image she projected, even to her HAIR.

I think we often don't realise how much *skill* is involved from both subject and photographer.

Sorry - first cup of coffee... rambling!

Nikolai

divamum wrote:

Great series, Nik - I like both batches with this lady

And what this series demonstrates (and many of your shoots have REALLY brought home to me because you are kind enough to include some outtakes when everybody's just standing there) is how a professional model COMPLETELY CHANGES in front of the camera. I don't mean makeup and styling (I know enough about those to see how and when they're responsible) but actually managing to change how they *physically* look and everything they project at the lens according to the direction they're given. Blows my mind. Which is weird, given that's what I do onstage as a performer, but I have music and text and all sorts of other stuff to generate the change; it's not just my actual, physical attributes which change. The idea of being able to do it exclusively with body lines and expression - and the photographer's direction and ability to "find the shot" to capture that (oh, I know how much of it is that, too!) - seriously blows my mind.

This one's in that category for sure when you compare and contrast the two looks you did, but one of the ladies on that beach shoot was the one that first made me REALLY notice this. the English brunette, I think it was - when I saw the outtakes I thought, 'She's a professional model? You're kiddding me." because she looked so... well... ORDINARY. Then you posted the real deal and it was like somebody had plugged her into an electric outlet and she was incandesscent - everything about her was different from her facial expressions, to the way she stood and used her body, to the image she projected, even to her HAIR.

I think we often don't realise how much *skill* is involved from both subject and photographer.

Sorry - first cup of coffee... rambling!

Thank you, great comment!
I agree, it is that versatility is what makes me long for each new shoot and what I'm trying to find and bring to the open in my subjects. Carolena has been a great example of such versatility indeed. She was perfectly capable of following precise directions (when I pretty much "place" each limb in place), loose directions ("turn the body to your left, head up and to your right") and bringing up her own poses.
Funny note: while I did realize that she's versatile right off the bat, the real understanding only dawned upon me when I started to look the the plunder on the big screen. She totally looked 12..14 in the first batch and then started to go her own age in the next one.. And once we elevated the makeup and went for a cocktail dress... Man... OK, that part is still in the works, but hopefully will be done tonight...

Qarik

nice shots..#4 rocks my socks off.:whew

Nikolai

Qarik wrote:

nice shots..#4 rocks my socks off.:whew

Mine, too. IMHO, that was "the" Lolita look

Ann McRae

Hi Nik

These are very good. Not crazy about the 'running shoes' but like everything else a lot.

I have a naive question tho - and that is the definition of high key. Here, the setting is high key, but the subject contrasts with that.
My understanding of high key is that everything would be bright - for e.g model in white or not clothed and brightly lit.

Nikolai

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi Nik

These are very good. Not crazy about the 'running shoes' but like everything else a lot.

I have a naive question tho - and that is the definition of high key. Here, the setting is high key, but the subject contrasts with that.
My understanding of high key is that everything would be bright - for e.g model in white or not clothed and brightly lit.

Ann, I wasn't going for the "white on white" scenario. I was primarily interested in the lighting setup, not in what she was wearing (well, sort of:-). In fact, I liked the contrast :-)

JimM

Number 4 is a fantastic image, great expression, sexy pose, A++

Nikolai

JimM wrote:

Number 4 is a fantastic image, great expression, sexy pose, A++

Yay, I got "A"!
Thanks, man!